On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> I will hopefully soon be building a server to donate to my church to
> replace a used one that I donated earlier this year. My question is
> this: Is SATA or SCSI preferrable?
>
> I am shooting for top notch reliability.
in that case ... i'd use 2 ata-based complete systems even if one
of it is a p-90 or something itty-bitty .. because when the main
box fails... you need a 2nd box to take over while you're
sleeping or on vacation
- nobody would notice that a p90 is handling their email
unless they want to use bloated mozilla for emails
in which case you need a bigger, but still semi-retired pcs
scsi is good IF you can keep the disks cool ( 2 fans per disk ) ...
- all my dead systems are scsi-based even with fans
( i guess people like the hot swap capability for replacing
dead scsi disks
ata is good if price is important ... 200GB for $50 ...
and i've not had any problems with ata except for the "death-star"
series which resulted in a class-action suit against ibm
scsi vs ata performance ...
- you can easily show that ata-133 can keep up with scsi-320
since those are marketing numbers ...
( use the same test scripts on the same mb/cpu/memory )
( assuming you compare 10K ata disks with 10K scsi disks
both with 2MB or 8MB or 16MB disk csche
if you compare a 15K scsi against a 5400 ata .. what does
one expect to show ??
- do real life tests vs theoretical tests
( complete backups is a good way to test real data transfers )
c ya
alvin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
